WILL CHARISMA TRUMP COMPETENCE?

A Time Magazine article due to be published on May 23 is headlined: "Hillary's new plan to trump Trump - by being boring." Multiple media outlets appear to agree with the opinion expressed in this piece. Much of what we have been exposed to during this election cycle and, essentially, what we are bombarded with to help us decide how to vote, consists of style vs. substance, or charisma vs. competence.

Pre-eminent sociologist Max Weber, while discussing "leadership" in his essay "The Three Types of Legitimate Rule," identified  traditional , charismatic and rational forms of authority. For our current discussion traditional authority is irrelevant. Weber defines charismatic authority as being possessed by a leader whose mission and vision inspires others. It is based on the perceived, extraordinary, characteristics of an individual. Leadership based on rational authority is derived from significant, hands on experience developed during extensive bureaucratic and political involvement. While the latter translates into "competence," a technocratic ability to perform well within institutions, the charismatic individual is described as someone with a compelling attractiveness or charm inspiring devotion in others. This is someone who possesses a personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm, especially if this person is a public figure.

While defining the terms in our original question helps to identify some of the players in our current presidential election, it does not help us decide their importance relative to the process they are engaged in. David Brooks, in a column entitled: "In Praise of Dullness" (N.Y. Times, May 18, 2009), suggests that, when it comes to leadership, people skills don't matter - it is organization and execution that counts. Pat Murphy, a columnist for the Waterloo Region Record, agrees that "in politics, competence almost always trumps charisma." However, Thomas Bateman, a professor at the University of Virginia, contends that: "Charm without substance is meaningless at best and dangerous at worst....poor people skills undermine a leader's credibility, reduce people's commitment, engender cynicism and other negative attitudes, and undermine motivatiion and commitment." He argues for a significant role of what we call charisma in the public sphere.

While we absorb these observations, we might rephrase the question we opened with to: How does charisma and competence, incorporated in electoral strategy, affect the outcome? It seems prudent to stipulate that most voters ultimately prefer competence in their political leaders. However, although the majority of voters may not select candidates without any regard for substantive experience, achievements and vision, many don't really follow issues and current events very closely. They may look to the general election debates to see who has the most personality. Our electoral history provides multiple examples of very competent candidates being upstaged by more charismatic counterparts. Walter Mondale, Al Gore and John Kerry came with impressive credentials, but they lacked the personable nature of their competitors. George H.W. Bush had a fairly successful first term, but Bill Clinton had star  power and overcame all that. Obama had charisma, but no real experience. Mc.Cain and Romney possessed loads of competence, but they could not overcome his personal appeal.

Which brings us to our current election. I don't intend to slight Bernie Sanders, who has lots of charisma, inspired millions, and who has given the Democratic front-runner much more than she expected. However, looking forward to the general election, we should consider the presumptive nominees of both parties. Hillary Clinton has decades of experience as First Lady, as Senator, and as Secretary of State. Nevertheless she comes across as canned, unauthentic, programmed and robotic - as the Time Magazine  article suggests, "boring." By her own admission, she is a lousy politician. While campaigning with her husband in 1992 her approval rating was only 38%. After becoming First Lady this improved to 66%. During her campaign against Barack Obama her polls came in at 48%, only to rebound to 66% during her stint as Secretary of State. She is liked as a technocrat, not as a candidate.

Donald Trump has no public record of policy and legislative competence. His "competence" is based on a perception fed by choreographed imagery. However, he has an innate, magnetic charisma. His detractors believe that he suffers from "grandiose narcissism, believing himself to be the smartest person in the world, and behaving accordingly." But, like other charismatic people, he can make others "drink the kool-aid." Whether this appeal with his substantial following will hold throughout the election cycle is somewhat questionable. Charisma, by nature, is unstable. The appeal to his base may diminish as he begins to pivot towards more mainstream policy prescriptions.   Besides, charisma unsupported by substance is usually a recipe for failure. Flash works for a while, but eventually people want more substance.

Having said all this, there are six months left in the election campaign. Tactics change as "red" and "blue" states and majority opinion within each become the primary focus. Weber did not suggest that charisma and competence are necessarily mutually exclusive. Most of us want both personality and ability. History tells us however that charisma often trumps competence during the selection process, while experience and ability become desirable in the candidate we ultimately choose. When we vote for empty promises, no matter how cleverly packaged, we get what we pay for. Whatever side you are on during our election, we should consider the consequences of registered uninformed decisions based solely on a candidate's charisma. If we make the wrong choice, we will be stuck for years to come.

WHAT ARE WE, A REPUBLIC OR A DEMOCRACY?

A May 3rd Newsweek article by Kurt Eichenwald entitled "Don't blame Trump: American Democracy was broken before he muscled in," suggests that "democracy" is supposedly a source of pride for Americans, yet held in contempt by too many citizens. The argument supports Donald Trump's contention that, even if he does not get to 1,237 delegates in the election process, he should get the nomination because he would presumably amass more than any other candidate. Anything less would be un-democratic. Eichenald concludes that "Democracy is not complicated: Whoever gets the most votes is supposed to win. That's it."

While most Americans tend to subscribe to basic democratic principles, and generally consider "democracy" and "republic" to be one of the same thing, there are substantive differences between those two concepts. History tells us that our Founding Fathers were adamantly opposed to democracy.
John Adams contended that: "Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide." James Madison, in Federalist Paper no. 10, wrote: "In a pure democracy there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual." The politicians were not the only ones critiquing democracy as a form of government. Chief Justice John Marshall suggested that "between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos." The framers adopted a compromise that fell somewhere between the ancient Greek democracy and the Roman republic, between (perceived) mob rule and stability. As it was understood, in a true democracy the majority ruled in all cases, regardless of consequences for individuals or for those who are not in the majority on an issue. The republic, as instituted, was set up as a representative form of government, ruled according to a constitution limiting governmental powers, and protecting the individual's rights against the desire of the majority. To insure that every state would follow suit, article 4, section 4, of our Constitution reads: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican form of Government. And our Pledge of Allegiance, composed in 1892 and adopted by Congress in 1942, states clearly: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and the Republic for which it stands....."

Many historical documents were designed to emphasize our republican institutions, although there were times when explanation and indoctrination converged. Notably, in 1928, the U.S. Army produced a document which defined democracy and republic as follows: "A democracy is majority rule and is destructive of liberty because there is no law to prevent the majority from trampling on individual rights. Whatever the majority says goes! A lynch mob is an example of pure democracy in action. There is only one dissenting vote, and that is cast by the person at the end of the rope. A republic is a government of law un der a constitution. The constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority (acting through their government) from violating the rights of the individual. Under this system of government a lynch mob is illegal. The suspected criminal cannot be denied his right to a fair trial even if a majority of the citizenry demands otherwise."

Over the years the distinction between these two forms of government began to soften. Democratic countries modified majority rule by adopting a system of proportional representation, balancing the interests of multiple factions in their society, and by forcing the use of coalition governments. A significant exception to this development has been the growing dominance of populist governments with an absolute majority in countries like Hungary and Poland. Their leaders were able to rewrite constitutions without input from opposition parties. Most of us subscribe to republican principles included in our Constitution, including "checks and balances" and the "Bill of Rights." While we contrast these with our understanding of a "pure" democracy, and while we reject its down-side, some of us are first in line to complain when majority rule is not applied, and when republican rules work against our interests. Political candidates running for president are complaining about an un-democratic selection process in both parties. Caucuses tend to be un-democratic, while "winner-take-all" primaries , while democratic, don't protect the voices of voters who end up losing. The Electoral College is a republican construct designed to prevent large, heavily populated states from running roughshod over small, sparsely populated states. However, polls show that 70 of the voting public supports a National Popular Vote bill, which would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the entire country.

Ultimately, the discussion surrounding our institutional identity is as simple as it may appear convoluted. Structurally we are a republic. Emotionally we tend to believe that many of our consequential decisions ought to be based on democratic principles.